THINK-ISRAEL

by Paul Austin Murphy

Walled: Israeli Society at an Impasse, by Sylvain
Cypel is a far-leftist account of Israel and its history, written from an anti-Zionist perspective which was forged by a then Maoist/Trotskyist activist in the mid-1970s.

INTRODUCTION

Many leftists used to argue that Benny Morris "never let his
political beliefs interfere with his historical work". That was when
Morris's work was used as a battle-axe against all things "Zionist" or
all defences of the state of Israel. When Morris made his about-turn
(if that's what it was), then, of course, these very same leftists
said that "he had let politics interfere with his historical
research". In other words, when he wrote things which furthered their
anti-Zionism — and their hatred of the state of Israel — they viewed
Benny Morris as a pure and objective historian. When he revised his
views on Israel, and indeed Zionism, it was then, and only then, that
politics had interfered with his work. But all this means is that they
liked, ideologically, what he wrote then; but don't like what he
writes now. The talk of objectivity is utter hypocrisy. Leftists like
Ilan Pappe, Norman Finklestein, Noam Chomsky and Sylvain Cypel don't
believe in objectivity or even truth. They believe in "lying for
Justice" and "narratives" as alternatives to truth. (This is not
according to the writer. It is according to these writers themselves.
Finklestein, for example, is on record as saying: "Of course I lie.
I'm a leftist.")

These leftist historians and journalists conveniently forget their
prior commitment to "narratives" and that "knowledge/truth is power"
when talking about Benny Morris's new positions on Zionism and
Israel.

It all boils down to racism, or "ethnicism" (a favourite of Sylvain
Cypel), or "Orientalism" — which are all virtual-synonyms to these
academics. Because they are all far-leftists, whether Trotskyist or
Communist, it's all a matter of racism. That's because racism, to
them, is strongly tied in with capitalist imperialism or colonialism.
That is, racism, or ethnicism, or Orientalism, is what "rationalises
the imperialist or colonialist crimes" in the eyes of the criminals
themselves. In "order to legitimise the colonialist or imperialist
actions", one has to "dehumanise the colonised". You do that through
racism (or, say, "Islamophobia").

There is a problem with this.

The anti-Orientalists must assume that all value-judgments about
the colonised  even if they are colonised (which isn't the case
in the Israeli-Palestinian situation) — simply must be wrong. No
culture can be inferior to any other culture. That is the pure
relativist position. Except that, being leftists, their relativism
isn't that pure. These very same people who talk about "Orientalism"
and the rest are thoroughly against "Western" or "capitalist" culture
and civilisation — and it is that which drives them. It's even the
case that they often prefer Arabic, or Islamic, or African, or
head-hunter, culture to their own. (To Western "capitalist and
imperialist culture".) Thus we can say that they are, in fact,
Occidentalists  they are anti-Western. But we don't need to say
this. I will keep their word  "Orientalist". They are racist,
and therefore Orientalist, precisely because they almost always see
Arabic, or Muslim, or African, culture to be superior to the West.
That is the Orientalism of those who are over-positive or
over-generous about other cultures. It is a form of inverted-racism.
Not even that. It is pure racism.

I have read Edward Said and I was always hard pressed to find a
single negative comment about any non-Western culture of religion
 ever! I have read Ed Said's Orientalism and the same is true of
that entire book. Edward Said simply wanted to substitute the
"Orientalist belittlement of Islam and Arab culture" with his own
positivity towards these things. And because there is a thriving
Edward Said — or "post-colonial studies" — industry, all these
right-on academics committed the same racism or "ethnicism" towards
the West. (But "only those with power", those in the White West, "can
be racist" in Marxist/leftist theory. But that doesn't work
either.)

I would argue that the seeming relativism is actually a plain
inversion of other people's supposed racism/s. An inversion of
Orientalism with Occidentalism. An inversion one ethnicism with
another. (Again, the Marxists/leftists will cop-out of this by saying
 or implying — that every white Westerner, and every Israeli,
has power vis-à-vis every single non-Westerner and every single
Palestinian.)

I would never argue, in the first place, that all cultures are
equal. I don't believe that for one moment. I am a culturalist.
Leftists are culturalists too, as I've been arguing, but they never
say that or even hint at it (either about themselves or their own
theories). What they are doing is righting wrongs. They do so by a
massive inversion of what they believe the Orientalists, or
ethnicists, or racists, believe/d about other cultures or religions.
And because they are all Marxists/leftists, they never were true
relativists in the first place. They praise and build-up other
cultures at the expense of the "capitalist West". (Robert Fisk, the
journalist, is good at this too. So much so that when some Pakistani
hooligans beat him up; he thanked them for it. It was their anger at
"colonialism" that made them do it. It had nothing at all do with him
being a kuffar.)

There are some thinkers and theorists, for example some
post-structuralists (those that practice deconstruction, such as
Derrida), or some post-modernists (such as like Jean Baudrillard), who
don't entirely fall into this trap. However, most people who speak in
defence of, say, Islam or the Arabs, do so because of their distaste
for "Western capitalism and imperialism". They are far from being
relativists when it comes to Arab or Islamic culture. They are
defending such things against the crimes and evils of the West.

SYLVAIN CYPEL ON BENNY MORRIS

Sylvain Cypel quotes many "Orientalist" passages from Benny Morris.
However, despite the many quotes, he never once argues as to why such
views are wrong. He simply assumes that they must be wrong. No
Westerner, or Israeli, ever has the right to pass judgement on another
culture or religion  least of all Islam or Arabic culture. It is
simply not on. And it isn't acceptable, in any form, because of
Cypel's pre-existing leftist position on these things. Criticism of
another culture simply must be seen as a disguise for racism, or
ethnicism, or Orientalism. They are simply tools of the capitalist, or
colonialist, or imperialist, used to "justify or rationalise the
oppression of the colonised peoples".

Thus every value-judgement (say, against head-hunters or
Palestinians), no matter how profound or well-argued, must simply be
"a disguise for racism"  which itself is an "ideological" tool
used for capitalist exploitation (in the form of colonialism or
imperialism).

Cypel is a child of the 1960s and 70s. He was a member of Israeli
revolutionary anti-Zionist group Matzpen. In 1970 he split away from
Matzpen and established the Workers' League, commonly known as
Avangard. But you can't always hold people guilty for past
misdemeanours. They may have changed. However, the problem is that it
was at this time that Cypel forged his anti-Zionist position or
stance. He has been thoroughly infected with the prejudices and
ideological clichés of the revolutionary left. Even if he's not
an active revolutionary today (he doesn't need to be  he and his
friends control the institutions  Gramsci-style), his position
was born and nourished at that time. Today he has simply finessed it
and made it a little less crude.

Sylvain Cypel quotes Benny Morris saying:

"There is a deep problem in Islam. It's a world whose
values are different. A world in which human life doesn't have the
same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy,
openness and creativity are alien... Revenge plays a central role in
the Arab tribal culture...." (151)

That is pretty controversial stuff  especially to an
anti-Zionist/anti-Orientalist journalist and writer. But despite that,
Cypel doesn't argue against what Morris says other than to say it is
"ethnicist", or "Orientalist", or with other examples of leftist
jargon. In other words, Cypel simply assumes it must be wrong. It
cannot be right. And it cannot be right quit simply because Cypel is a
leftist anti-Zionist — who may well have left his Trotskyist
street-activism in the 1970s. He still upholds the shallow theories of
those times  it's just that he doesn't rant as much as he no
doubt did back then. (This is of course true of so many
suited-and-tied, Chardonnay-quaffing socialists around today who are
in their fifties, sixties and seventies.)

Paul Austin Murphy lives in Birmingham, England. He writes about
Islam. This article was submitted December 19, 2012 and is archived at
http://paulaustinmurphyseverythinganything.blogspot.com/2012/12/sylvain-cypel-on-benny-morriss.html